580
ICE sent into frenzy to return longtime Trump golf employee mistakenly deported to Mexico
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
580 points (99.3% liked)
politics
26239 readers
2623 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's one complete article compared to a partial sentence stripped of all context?
Like if there's one word that being removed from a sentence is a giant red flag...
"However" has to be up there.
Like, it's hard to see that deliberate and unnecessary ommision as anything other than an intentional and explicit choice to bias people who didn't click the link...
Read what you posted. The context is saying that they don't know for sure what % of the population knew, and they lay out some arguments supporting both sides. You used the link as if it proved the population didn't know. But that clearly isn't what it says.
My point wasn't that the link proved the opposite of your opinion, it was that the link doesn't prove your opinion. That is a different bar.
The word "however" basically means "in contrast to the previous sentence". It exclusion doesn't change the meaning of the quote. It simply shortens it by allowing the exclusion of the previous sentence. I am not disputing that some experts believe the population didn't know. I am disputing that the link proves that the consensus of experts believe the population didn't know. That is how you presented the link, with obvious intent to mislead anyone who didn't read it into thinking it supported as fact that the population didn't know.